How many trillions have been spent on weapons that didn't work, like RR's Star Wars Missile Shield?

Not ALL investments make a profit, that's CAPITALISM.

Q

llotter

04-03-2012, 08:18 AM

Yes, government is very wasteful and that is one good reason that conservatives what to strictly limit the size and scope of government intrusion. Unfortunately, the military is one big expense where the government is necessarily involved and thankfully, they have done a fair job even though we all know that there is a lot of waste. I would say that were the gov. to dismantle the redistribution share of spending, now 2/3 of the total and none of which is constitutional, our representatives might be better able to spend more time cutting out that waste in the remaining budget.

And, when it is the government that is making such 'investments', it is NOT CAPITALISM which is necessarily done in the private sector with private money of their own volition. Government making such investments is SOCIALISM.

How many trillions have been spent on weapons that didn't work, like RR's Star Wars Missile Shield?

Q </div></div>

That would be essentially zero in that our investment has came to $.03T over nearly 30 years ... being that GMD became operational in 2006, AEGIS BMDS became operational in 2004, THAAD was deployed in 2008, and the PATRIOT system was upgraded as early as 1988 to defend against ballistic missile attacks.

Perhaps your nation's King doesn't allow the oafs and serfs to keep up with such things ... or perhaps you prefer to remain willingly ignorant.

If I send you a book can you find someone to read it to you?

Soflasnapper

04-03-2012, 09:51 AM

The investment in missile defense was over $.06 T in just a 7 year period in the '00s this millenium, at about $10 billion a year.

A selected acquisition report (SAR) sent to Congress on April 13 indicated that the total missile defense development cost for 2002 through 2009 will be $62.9 billion, not $47.2 billion as was projected last year. The total, which includes only research, development, testing and evaluation, was included in the FY 04 budget request in February but was not broken down into elements at that point. $18 billion of the increase is due to engineering changes needed after U.S. President George W. Bush announced in December 2002 the development and eventual deployment of a layered missile defense system. $1.45 billion of the increase is needed to meet the 2004/2005 initial deployment deadline. The SAR also states that the increase is marginally offset by a $3.8 billion reduction, thanks to planned cuts in terminal phase missile defense programs. </div></div>

here (http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/costs-updates.cfm)

You are therefore likely off by an order of magnitude, which is an improvement from some of your other errors.

Yes, we have some (inadequate) theater missile defense systems, but still nothing proven to work for the intercontinental ballistic missile threat, despite rigged tests.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3. How much money should we be prepared to spend on missile defense and how long will it take?

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has not had a successful flight intercept test with its Ground-based Missile Defense (GMD) system for three and a half years. In the most recent two flight intercept tests, the interceptor never got off the ground. Nevertheless the GMD system is being deployed in Alaska and California. The MDA plans 20 or 30 more developmental flight intercept tests before they will be ready for realistic operational testing. At the current rate of success it could take over 50 years before the system was ready to be tested under realistic operational conditions.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>If spending rises as estimated by the CBO, U.S. taxpayers could spend over a trillion dollars on missile defense in that period. This does not include the roughly $100 billion already spent on missile defense since President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" speech in 1983.</span> </div></div>

So, about $100 billion ($0.1 trillion) before Bush got busy, about $10 billion a year during his time, crowding closer then to $0.2 trillion, with a prospect of an actual trillion spent on the horizon for the full deployment.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">O<span style='font-size: 14pt'>ur federal government is spending four times as much each year on R&D for missile defense as we do on energy R&D. </span>Wouldn't it be just as effective to solve our energy problems - mitigating our dependence on the Middle East, reducing the competition for oil with China and India? </div></div>

cushioncrawler

04-03-2012, 03:24 PM

Starwars shoodnt kost much.
Get a 2nd-hand wooden box -- paint it black -- put it on a post -- square to the lazer -- hold the box steady.
Aim lazer krosshairs on middle of box -- fire.
Did we hit it?????? -- hard to tell, i think so, yes i smell burnt paint.
Good, now theusofa just hazta upgrade it to hit something hard and shiney and fast a long ways away.

But think of the money being wasted on fuzion research.
U would think that they might just spend the money on aktual solar cells and collectors.
Pity, what a waste.
By komparasun they are 50 years away from hitting a stationary square black box at 10 paces.
mac.

Hey wait a minute, somethings burning, its the black box -- great, a source of solar energy -- starwars haz in a small way helped fuzion research.

Likewize fuzion research haz vaporized a 2mm pellet -- and in a small way helped starwars. Waytogo.

It gives a whole new meaning to the idea of 'green' energy. </div></div>

Actually, this report is false.

There was a conditional loan guarantee in this amount, yes.

However, the conditions were that they use it in a given business direction, which they did not do, turning to a different strategy, and therefore voiding the conditions, the guarantee, and the attendant claimed loss in this case.

As false charges go, this $2.1 billion is on the low side, so I suppose no harm, no foul (except that we may revise our opinion of zerohedge's accuracy downwards, as this loan guarantee's cancellation from the actions of the company have been well reported by many news sources, and they clearly dropped the ball on the facts here).

Uwe T. Schmidt, chief executive of Solar Trust, says he is a fan of the Energy Department's loan-guarantee program. He met with Energy Secretary Steven Chu and the program's director, Jonathan Silver, when his company was seeking support for a 1,000-megawatt solar thermal plant it wanted to build in the California desert in Riverside County.

But when the department offered him a $2.1 billion loan guarantee, Schmidt turned it down. It would have been one of the largest stimulus-funded clean-technology projects, and Solar Trust had been negotiating the deal for roughly a year. But Schmidt decided it was too risky.

"I'm now famous for getting the largest loan guarantee and then turning it down," Schmidt said. "For very sound business reasons, we opted not to go forward." [The Washington Post, 9/26/11]

A California developer has significantly altered the technology it will use to build a massive solar power plant in the Sonoran Desert, a move that makes it ineligible for a $2.1 billion loan guarantee that the Energy Department offered the company just a few months ago.

Solar Trust of America, based in Oakland, initially planned to use concentrating solar technology for the first 500-MW phase of the 9-square-mile power plant it intends to build near Blythe, about 200 miles west of Los Angeles. But Solar Trust announced last week that it will now use photovoltaic panels for at least the first phase of the project, which the company said are less expensive.

That decision allows Solar Trust to finance the project in the commercial banking market. But it also means that Solar Trust will walk away from the $2.1 billion loan guarantee that DOE conditionally awarded it in April -- the largest non-nuclear loan guarantee that the department has awarded to date.

"Improved conditions for solar PV projects in the commercial bank market made pursuing commercial financing a more attractive strategy at this time," Edward Sullivan, Solar Trust's vice president of communications and external affairs, said in an email.